I haven't posted much here in a long time. I still drop in from time to time, but mostly just lurk.

This is the email from redstate on John Roberts. Pretty interesting take on the decision. He definately left the door open.

Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

I'm really starting to think he's just giving the left enough rope to hang themselves with.

Hubie

06-28-2012, 06:28 PM

I'm really starting to think he's just giving the left enough rope to hang themselves with.

It would be a move worthy of Rove. :evil-grin:

Rockntractor

06-28-2012, 06:29 PM

Too much spin for me, I can't give Roberts that much credit.

Molon Labe

06-28-2012, 06:58 PM

Too much spin for me, I can't give Roberts that much credit.

+1

Way too much spin. Krauthammer is way too intelligent to be buying this bull. Roberts has put the entire issue for conservatives behind the 8 ball.

It's unconstitutional period.

Here's one truism in the SCOTUS. If a justice is going to bail it's going to always be the supossed "conservative" judge. I have yet to watch a liberal justice not tow the left wing line on every decision. When we lose it's because one of ours defected.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Uggggh! Hes defeating his own argument. If anything this also applies to the GOP because Roberts is a Bush nominee. One could argue it matters little either way.

Rockntractor

06-28-2012, 07:12 PM

+1

Way too much spin. Krauthammer is way too intelligent to be buying this bull. Roberts has put the entire issue for conservatives behind the 8 ball.

It's unconstitutional period.

Here's one truism in the SCOTUS. If a justice is going to bail it's going to always be the supossed "conservative" judge. I have yet to watch a liberal justice not tow the left wing line on every decision. When we lose it's because one of ours defected.

Uggggh! Hes defeating his own argument. If anything this also applies to the GOP because Roberts is a Bush nominee. One could argue it matters little either way.

They just got done turning the Arizona immigration case into a big circle jerk also.

Janice

06-28-2012, 07:23 PM

Yes, I too am wondering if Roberts is just being "too smart by half" if this is just a strategy.

Even if this is his so called "legacy" building ploy... because hes the chief justice. I can only guess he sipped a bit too much of the DC circuit kool aid.

This is the sort of thing that brought the tea party into being. And now it is being brought to a boil.

Democrats beware. You might be laughing now... but we'll see funny you think this is come elections.

DumbAss Tanker

06-28-2012, 07:40 PM

It actually is a bright spot that the Court FINALLY found something where they are willing to draw a line and say there is a limit to the scope of the Commerce Clause, however I am extremely disappointed that they validated the mandate as a tax when the Administration specifically disclaimed the position that it could be a tax in their argument to the Court. Normally when you refuse a position in an appeal that turns out could have made you a winner, in retrospect after the opinion comes down, you are stuck with what you argued and therefore just plain screwed. Tossing them a lifeline on this was not appropriate.

Perhaps, but in the meantime the rest of us unwashed masses start paying another tax that we shouldn't have to thanks to Roberts.

Swampfox

06-28-2012, 10:42 PM

I hope I'm wrong but I see another Kennedy. Kennedy voted to overturn the law, so Roberts is going to be much worse in my eyes going forward.

Rockntractor

06-28-2012, 10:52 PM

Kennedy voted to overturn the law, so Roberts is going to be much worse in my eyes going forward.

Good point!

Rockntractor

06-28-2012, 10:56 PM

I guess it is time to just out of curiosity study Roberts past and see if there were any clues in his life as to why he is behaving this way now.
Too late of course but it seems that most things are these days, we are looking at the United States in the rear view mirror now.

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 12:01 AM

http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

SaintLouieWoman

06-29-2012, 12:12 AM

I've been very uneasy with all the talk the last few days from the Republicans about not gloating. I doubt if they're gloating now. I think they had the wrong person with Pam Bondi of Florida leading the charge. She's not a constitutional lawyer, bright but not all that bright. We forgot that it's not over til that fat lady sings.

Here's hoping that Roberts wasn't being too cute and that somehow the Republicans and libertarians can join in their opposition to Obama and his damned Obamacare.

We can't afford too many like Mike128's advocating staying home on election day. We need droves of people going to the polls to offset the illegals and dead people voting for the opposition.

SaintLouieWoman

06-29-2012, 12:17 AM

http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

Listening to him reminds me of why Hannity calls him the "Great Levin, the Great One". Levin doesn't play the stupid little games.

I hate to give any concession to Obama and his minions, but they played it right---kept up about the SC being partisan. If Kennedy could side with the conservatives, it's absurd that Roberts didn't. He indeed must be drinking the Kool-Aide. I hope Levin is wrong, hope that Roberts was being extremely clever. I guess we'll find out.

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 12:22 AM

I hope Levin is wrong, hope that Roberts was being extremely clever. I guess we'll find out.

Unfortunately the answer is normally the simplest one.

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 12:40 AM

Roberts doctrine; constitution what fucking constitution, you don't like the decisions your politicians make vote in different ones and don't expect us to fix things for you, it's not our fucking problem. Sotomayor pass me the damn joint you Bogart!

txradioguy

06-29-2012, 03:07 AM

Three major tenets of of what makes this country great...freedom of speech...security of our borders and freedom of choice and the SCOTUS managed to fuck up all three in one week. Amazing.

Gina

06-29-2012, 10:43 AM

The political genius of John Roberts
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/)

After Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes deftly beat back Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s court-packing proposal, FDR said, with grudging admiration, that Hughes was the best politician in the country. “That was hardly the way Hughes would have chosen to be remembered,” writes James Simon in “FDR and Chief Justice Hughes,” “though there was much truth in the president’s remark.”

I doubt Roberts wants to be known for his political skills, either. But in today’s decision, he showed that, like Hughes before him, he’s got those skills in spades.

The decision today is being reported as 5-4, with Roberts voting with the liberals. Akhil Reid Amar, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law, sees it differently. “The decision was 4-1-4,” he said.

Here’s what Amar means: The 5-4 language suggests that Roberts agreed with the liberals. But for the most part, he didn’t. If you read the opinions, he sided with the conservative bloc on every major legal question before the court. He voted with the conservatives to say the Commerce Clause did not justify the individual mandate. He voted with the conservatives to say the Necessary and Proper Clause did not justify the mandate. He voted with the conservatives to limit the federal government’s power to force states to carry out the planned expansion of Medicaid. ”He was on-board with the basic challenge,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. “He was on the conservative side of the controversial issues.”

His break with the conservatives, and his only point of agreement with the liberals, was in finding that the mandate was a “tax” — a finding that, while extremely important for the future of the Affordable Care Act, is not a hugely consequential legal question.

Arroyo_Doble

06-29-2012, 10:53 AM

I keep coming back to a line from a documentary called The Commanding Heights when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred. In it, someone said that the upper echelons of the Soviet Union truly believed that property was theft so that when the government collapsed, they just stole property.

I think Republicans, and the Right in general, truly believe the Court is activist so when they get what they think is control of the Judicial Branch, they expect the Court to exert their political will.

Gina

06-29-2012, 11:08 AM

I keep coming back to a line from a documentary called The Commanding Heights when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred. In it, someone said that the upper echelons of the Soviet Union truly believed that property was theft so that when the government collapsed, they just stole property.

I think Republicans, and the Right in general, truly believe the Court is activist so when they get what they think is control of the Judicial Branch, they expect the Court to exert their political will.

Yeah right. The left is virtuous and humble and never expects the Court to vote their way based on political leanings. :rolleyes:

The left is just as concerned about SC judicial appointments as the right is. Why is that do you suppose?

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 11:19 AM

Yeah right. The left is virtuous and humble and never expects the Court to vote their way based on political leanings. :rolleyes:

The left is just as concerned about SC judicial appointments as the right is. Why is that do you suppose?

I think Dolby will get his fully socialist state just like he wants, no matter how you try to spin this it is a win for them and they have effectively neutered the constitution, it is no longer much of an impediment to them.
Let's see if they like the new world they are creating.

Greece happens.

Gina

06-29-2012, 11:25 AM

I think Dolby will get his fully socialist state just like he wants, no matter how you try to spin this it is a win for them and they have effectively neutered the constitution, it is no longer much of an impediment to them.
Let's see if they like the new world they are creating.

Greece happens.

I would agree with you had the court put this through under the commerce clause as we would have little if no power to do anything about it, but taxes are something we have a say in by who we vote for and whose congressional office we call every single day.

I think the country is currently in an entitlement mentality (obviously) and needs to go through a lot before it can be corrected. At least I hope it can be corrected.

FlaGator

06-29-2012, 12:27 PM

I really think that we should let this play out before making snap judgements on Roberts. At first I was upset with him but then I remembered that he understands much more about Constitutional law than I ever will. I decided that for right now it it best not to second guess what I believe to be a conservative Constitutional scholar and see how these thing ends up.

Tipsycatlover

06-29-2012, 12:36 PM

Roberts gave the left a Pyrrhic victory. The price they will pay will be paid in November.

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 01:19 PM

I really think that we should let this play out before making snap judgements on Roberts. At first I was upset with him but then I remembered that he understands much more about Constitutional law than I ever will. I decided that for right now it it best not to second guess what I believe to be a conservative Constitutional scholar and see how these thing ends up.

Got it, Thomas and Scalia , don't know what the fuck they are doing. What we all need to do is forget what is right and join the liberals because it freaks them out.

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 01:25 PM

Let's get real here, we won nothing, our constitution is less.
Let's get it fucking straight that nothing short of putting a Republican in the presidency this November is a win either.

FlaGator

06-29-2012, 01:35 PM

Let's get real here, we won nothing, our constitution is less.
Let's get it fucking straight that nothing short of putting a Republican in the presidency this November is a win either.

So how is are constituation less?

Rockntractor

06-29-2012, 01:49 PM

So how is are constituation less?

Every time the constitution is misinterpreted to take away freedoms the case are used as precedent to take away ,more freedoms later. If somebody has time to type out a more lengthly explanation they can be my guest, in the mean time you might study the dissenting opinions as well as listen to Mark Levin.

Rather than writhing and twisting to show sense on Roberts position we should be looking at Thomas and Scalias positions.

Janice

06-29-2012, 01:50 PM

So how is are constituation less?

Where pray tell does the constitution say that govt can tax every behavior and choice under the sun? Including doing nothing?

If you pay into 0bamacare its a tax. If you dont pay into it your fined (a tax). Essentially its like walking into a store and asking how much a large soda from the fountain is. Then deciding you dont want it. Then the cashier saying "that will $1.20 tax then ..." And you'll have to pay it!

FlaGator

06-29-2012, 02:04 PM

Where pray tell does the constitution say that govt can tax every behavior and choice under the sun? Including doing nothing?

If you pay into 0bamacare its a tax. If you don't pay into it your fined (a tax). Essentially its like walking into a store and asking how much a large soda from the fountain is. Then deciding you dont want it. Then the cashier saying "that will $1.20 tax then ..." And you'll have to pay it!

Where does it say that they can't tax us in to oblivion? Constitutionally once the door was open for taxing the masses things like this were inevitable.

Listen, I don't like this any more than you do and I'm looking forward to a Romeny win so we can get this repealed. I am also upset that SCOTUS seemed to side stepped a great opportunity to limit the commerce clause but I have to hope that there is more to this than meets the eye.

If nothing else then this ruling fires up the base and conservatives can take congress and the Presidency in November.

I also fall back on the position that God is running the show and that things are happening as He wants them to happen. That gives me comfort when facing the disappointment that I felt yesterday. I may not understand the whats and whys of this but God does so I will refrain from getting too upset or pronouncing doom on our future until this plays itself out.

Chuck58

06-29-2012, 02:21 PM

I know yesterday's decision theoretically opened the door to more taxes, but the tax law has always been there and they've always had that ability. Hell, aren't we still paying for the Spanish American War on our phone bills? Everything is already taxed, and hidden taxes appear regularly that we don't even notice.

I don't see sudden major taxes appearing. I see creeping taxes, little things that gradually increase yearly. It's like voting on a bond issue that "only increases your property tax 'x' dollars a year." Then, in a year or two there's another for something else, etc. Pretty soon your property tax is in the stratosphere and you wonder what the hell happened.

That's how they'll try to do it, if we don't keep on their backs.

In the meantime, rally the troops and work on getting this character out of the white house and getting rid of his largest tax increase in world history healthcare.

Swampfox

06-29-2012, 02:58 PM

Here's hoping that Roberts wasn't being too cute and that somehow the Republicans and libertarians can join in their opposition to Obama and his damned Obamacare.

We can't afford too many like Mike128's advocating staying home on election day. If it is any consolation, I was planning on voting for Gary Johnson. I'm now planning on voting for Romney because of this decision.

I still think Roberts made this decision because he was scared of court criticism, which is really disappointing.

Zeus

06-29-2012, 04:42 PM

Where does it say that they can't tax us in to oblivion? Constitutionally once the door was open for taxing the masses things like this were inevitable.

Listen, I don't like this any more than you do and I'm looking forward to a Romeny win so we can get this repealed. I am also upset that SCOTUS seemed to side stepped a great opportunity to limit the commerce clause but I have to hope that there is more to this than meets the eye.

If nothing else then this ruling fires up the base and conservatives can take congress and the Presidency in November.

I also fall back on the position that God is running the show and that things are happening as He wants them to happen. That gives me comfort when facing the disappointment that I felt yesterday. I may not understand the whats and whys of this but God does so I will refrain from getting too upset or pronouncing doom on our future until this plays itself out.

The SCOTUS decision did in effect put restraint on congressional over reach on use of the commerce clause to justify their actions. The mandate is a tax. In today's political environment passing more taxes is extremely difficult and borders on political suicide. It remains to be seen but I think Roberts preserved the commerce clause and put a server onous on congress when it comes to taxation.

Gina

06-29-2012, 05:31 PM

The SCOTUS decision did in effect put restraint on congressional over reach on use of the commerce clause to justify their actions. The mandate is a tax. In today's political environment passing more taxes is extremely difficult and borders on political suicide. It remains to be seen but I think Roberts preserved the commerce clause and put a server onous on congress when it comes to taxation.

Yes.

I didn't listen to Rush today but I read some of his take on the decision. He's just sick about it, as many of us are. However, he pointed out that Ginsburg wrote dissent on what Roberts wrote. Why would that be?

They won and they're complaining about Roberts and Ginsburg wrote a dissent. What was she dissenting from? So I looked into it. They're ticked off at Roberts, essentially she criticizes Roberts for violating the principle that you don't reach constitutional issues if there's an alternative way to decide the case. So Roberts contended that the mandate was unconstitutional, but it could be upheld as a tax. And Ginsburg said, well, if you're going to do that, there's no need to even talk about the mandate and the ruling. If you're going to say that the mandate could be upheld as a tax, then you don't have to even get to the mandate, constitutionally, you don't have to talk about it. You don't have to rule it unconstitutional.

The four libs wanted this case on the mandate, not the tax increase. They wanted the Commerce Clause to be stretched to include unlimited government power. And they were ticked off at Roberts for limiting that. They say if you're going to find this as a tax case, leave it at that. So when I found that out, that really aroused my curiosity, because they thought Roberts then started answering an unnecessary question. And that, according to Ginsburg and the left, makes Roberts an activist judge. You know, my head is swimming, because all of this is gobbledy gook. All of this is total BS, folks. And yes, I'm going to explain this as the program unfolds, I'm just setting the table here.
It's an interesting link if you didn't hear the show today. I think most of you will agree with what he says. But the fact remains that the left judges didn't like how Roberts did this.

Chuck58

06-29-2012, 05:46 PM

I think there was a deal cut by Roberts and the libs, or a couple of them and I see this as a win for our side. Maybe he buffaloed them without their realizing it.

They got obamacare. He got some restraint regarding the commerce clause and that magic word 'tax' in an election year, which always lights up voters. Maybe the lib judges realize that they were had and that's Ginsberg's dissent opinion.

Zeus

06-29-2012, 09:48 PM

I think there was a deal cut by Roberts and the libs, or a couple of them and I see this as a win for our side. Maybe he buffaloed them without their realizing it.

They got obamacare. He got some restraint regarding the commerce clause and that magic word 'tax' in an election year, which always lights up voters. Maybe the lib judges realize that they were had and that's Ginsberg's dissent opinion.

The case wasn't about obamacare per se it was about the Mandate.

Chuck58

06-29-2012, 10:07 PM

The case wasn't about obamacare per se it was about the Mandate.

I know what it was about. I haven't heard much about the mandate winning on any news program. The people only know that obamacare was ruled constitutional. I'll choose to call it obamacare (because obama despises the term).

Unreconstructed Reb

06-30-2012, 11:07 AM

Well, so much for "limited government" and "consent of the governed".

I'm gonna vote for the Romulator but it really doesn't make much difference who is elected at this point. The system is broken. It's nothing but a giant playground for the Ivy League elitist and limousine liberals. It's too late to work within the system unless you are very well connected and that is not the system that the Founders envisioned.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " excerpt from the Declaration of Independence